You are here: / / THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT ALLEGING INSURERS FAILED TO ACCURATELY REPORT UNCLAIMED...
, , ,

THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT ALLEGING INSURERS FAILED TO ACCURATELY REPORT UNCLAIMED LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS, TO WHICH THE STATE IS ENTITLED, IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SPECIFY THE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this qui tam action should have been allowed to amend the complaint to specify the allegations of fraud against the defendant insurance companies. Unclaimed life insurance proceeds are supposed to escheat to the state. The lawsuit alleged the insurance companies had submitted false statements to the state to conceal the existence of life insurance proceeds to which the state is entitled, a violation of the New York False Claims Act (NYFCA). The First Department, in allowing the complaint to be amended to specify the fraud allegations, held that the 10-year statute of limitations applied to the filing of the alleged false reports:

… [P]laintiff adequately alleged that defendants knowingly filed false reports with the State which failed to identify escheatable life insurance proceeds. The complaint alleges that defendants’ recordkeeping was so haphazard — such as listing incorrect names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, or omitting one or more of those pieces of information altogether — that it amounted to reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the reports that they submitted to the State (see State Finance Law § 188[3][a][iii]). In other circumstances, according to the complaint, defendants had actual knowledge that a policyholder was deceased, as evidenced by returned mail, customer call service logs, or demutualization payments separately escheated to the State, yet defendants nevertheless failed to disclose or escheat the deceased policyholder’s life insurance proceeds to the State (see State Finance Law § 188[3][a][i]). These allegations, if true, demonstrate that defendants “deliberately turn[ed] a blind eye to reporting errors and then attest[ed] that, to [their] knowledge, they d[id] not exist” … . Total Asset Recovery Servs. LLC v Metlife, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07480, First Dept 12-10-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER, AS OPPOSED TO THE CORPORATION, CAN NOT BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW UNLESS THE OFFICER ENCOURAGED, CONDONED OR APPROVED THE SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT; COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CORPORATE OFFICER DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING DESPITE THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LIMITED RELIEF AVAILABLE TO A DISSENTING MEMBER AFTER THE MERGER OF TWO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (SECOND DEPT).
2015 MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL OF A 1986 CONVICTION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO HER CLIENT’S RE THE CLIENT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE MOTION WITH NEW COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED... SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL...